By the way, the Daily Mail may be the only place on Earth where the expression "preserve her modesty" has been used unironically since the reign of Queen Victoria.

Because obviously, when a professional swimsuit/topless model is posing for pictures for a nationally distributed magazine or popular website wearing nothing but body paint and a smile, it's important that she keep one finger over her nipple to preserve that last morsel of modesty. After all, she wouldn't want the Daily Mail calling her a hussy.

gaspode:The intent is clear, and the wording extremely carefully chosen.. the poll makes a point of explaining things in a way that will drive down numbers, while not mentioning anything that might drive up numbers.

It should be meant to be a poll not an educational/persuasive piece, if people are ill-informed then the poll's job is to show the result of that not to fix it.

As opposed to the Kos poll which states the question in a way that would drive up numbers without mentioning anything that might drive them down? Using "loaded words" isn't exactly neutral. There are many ways that both polls could be improved.

Yes, I agree that polls shouldn't be educational/persuasive. Still, I think that providing a bit of context and avoiding loaded words is a good thing.

Maybe I interpreted the text slightly differently, but I read the Gallup poll as being more explanatory than misleading. That is, that they specify that they are referring to semi-automatic guns that (some) people call "assault rifles" rather than suggesting that the bans would restrict all semi-auto guns. There's a lot of confusion on the issue, and many people think that "assault weapons" are full-auto or burst-fire instead of semi-auto. Specifically mentioning that the poll is referring to certain guns that are semi-auto seems reasonable to me.

The intent is clear, and the wording extremely carefully chosen.. the poll makes a point of explaining things in a way that will drive down numbers, while not mentioning anything that might drive up numbers.

It should be meant to be a poll not an educational/persuasive piece, if people are ill-informed then the poll's job is to show the result of that not to fix it.

heypete:gaspode: The intent is clear, and the wording extremely carefully chosen.. the poll makes a point of explaining things in a way that will drive down numbers, while not mentioning anything that might drive up numbers.

It should be meant to be a poll not an educational/persuasive piece, if people are ill-informed then the poll's job is to show the result of that not to fix it.

As opposed to the Kos poll which states the question in a way that would drive up numbers without mentioning anything that might drive them down? Using "loaded words" isn't exactly neutral. There are many ways that both polls could be improved.

Yes, I agree that polls shouldn't be educational/persuasive. Still, I think that providing a bit of context and avoiding loaded words is a good thing.

When the people who design the polls are actually trying to accurately measuring something, and don't simply have an ax to grind, they ask the same question multiple ways so as to sort out that kind of bias.

It requires, however, that you have a group of researchers who care about scientific ethics more than pushing a particular socio-political agenda.

techbuzz:I've been skipping all Daily Fail links on Fark for some time now. I wish mods/Drew would cut those ties and stop greenlighting Fail links.Relevant talk/video: Why the Daily Fail Is Irredeemable Shiat

ciberido:When the people who design the polls are actually trying to accurately measuring something, and don't simply have an ax to grind, they ask the same question multiple ways so as to sort out that kind of bias.

I assumed something like this happens in well-designed polls.

It requires, however, that you have a group of researchers who care about scientific ethics more than pushing a particular socio-political agenda.

With the state of journalism today all internet news stories have some amount of BS in them. The amount just depends on the bias of the reporter and "news organization". Journalists are scum of the earth and get paid to lie, they are third on the list of liars who get paid for it, behind politicians who are number one and police officers.

I normally like Cracked articles. But, man, sometimes they just get so full of themselves. There was no farking reason for each segment in that article to be SO long. I only read about the top two paragraphs of each, got the gist, and moved on.

As far as the content of the article... I think he left out something that's very important (unless it was burried in one of those rants). Everytime there is a big news story, say, gun control, or Obama's birth certificate, all our FB friends posts a litany of graphic snippets that show "facts" about the situation. No citing of any articles. Just a blurb and a photo. Like, "Obama refuses to fly the flag half-staff for the soldier who was killed at a shooting range."

Where did that come from? Why would someone even ask Obama to do that? Do they realize that the flag is not flown half-staff for someone just because they were a veteren? Especially when he's murdered by a friend, and not killed in service of the country?

czetie:Highly relevant: http://youtu.be/5eBT6OSr1TI "I know it's true because I read it in the Daily Mail"

The thing that really gets me about the Daily Mail is not so much the egregious bullshiat. It's not even the stories declaring that everything on the planet causes cancer, apart from the things that miraculously cure cancer.

What gets me though is the head-spinning constant denigration of women. Dress too conservatively and you're frumpy or dowdy or, worse, possibly a Muslim. Show a little skin and you're sexy. Show too much skin and you're a tramp, a whore, and a terrible role model for your children and everybody else's children (because it's all about the children). No cleavage = bad. Little cleavage = good. Lots of cleavage = dangerous. Nipple = end of western civilization as we know it. And then best of all is their fake outrage when they want an excuse to run a picture of a topless celeb or a swimsuit model: "Look at that dreadful hussy! Flaunting herself like that! And here's another shot of her ass so you can see for yourself how offensive it is!". (Related: "Paparazzi are a dreadful scourge, and here's a bunch of pictures we bought from them.")

The Daily Mail is designed for two things: Keeping blue-collar white males perpetually outraged and generating linkbait.

Poll questions should avoid all hint of value judgement or, as another poster well explained, use multiple questions with different slants to try and balance it. There is a huge difference between being truthful and a push poll. Just because everything in a question is factually truthful does not make it a fair or valid polling question, that is a laughably naive statement, and in itself a 'push' question. (You basically are saying 'oh so you support lying in poll questions? well do you?')

This was a borderline push poll. There are much worse of course, see everytthing fox news ever does for examples.